Cons say the government doesn't create jobs....

[rightwinger]

every day I am more convinced that liberalism is a mental disease. No sane person could think they way they do.

Liberals founded this country and are responsible for every major advance.

18th century liberals bear no resemblance to your ilk.

Nor should they....liberals evolve to face new challenges

Is that another way of saying they no longer believe in anything they believed in during the 18th century?

what he is saying is that the liberals of 1776 are the conservatives of 2015.

Actually, I am saying conservatives are stuck in the 18th century



.

 

[The Rabbi]

back to the OP.

the government can create an environment that is conducive to the creation of private sector jobs and the government can create government jobs that must be paid for with tax collections.

In one case govt revenue is increased in the other govt spending is increased.

Does anyone really have to ask which is better?

Both are necessary

Yes, but its the % relationship between the two that has gotten out of sync. We have way too many people on the govt payroll.

The US has a lower percentage on the government payroll than any industrialized nation
We have fewer government workers than we had under JFK even though we have almost double the population

LOL! Sure. Kewl story, bro.

 

[bripat9643]

back to the OP.

the government can create an environment that is conducive to the creation of private sector jobs and the government can create government jobs that must be paid for with tax collections.

In one case govt revenue is increased in the other govt spending is increased.

Does anyone really have to ask which is better?

Both are necessary

Yes, but its the % relationship between the two that has gotten out of sync. We have way too many people on the govt payroll.

The US has a lower percentage on the government payroll than any industrialized nation
We have fewer government workers than we had under JFK even though we have almost double the population

Most of the "government workers" under JFK were in the military.

 

[bripat9643]

Liberals founded this country and are responsible for every major advance.

18th century liberals bear no resemblance to your ilk.

Nor should they....liberals evolve to face new challenges

Is that another way of saying they no longer believe in anything they believed in during the 18th century?

what he is saying is that the liberals of 1776 are the conservatives of 2015.

Actually, I am saying conservatives are stuck in the 18th century

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, numskull. On the one hand you claim some kind of ideological kinship with 18th Century liberals. On the other hand you admit that you have nothing in common with them.

 

[The Rabbi]

18th century liberals bear no resemblance to your ilk.

Nor should they....liberals evolve to face new challenges

Is that another way of saying they no longer believe in anything they believed in during the 18th century?

what he is saying is that the liberals of 1776 are the conservatives of 2015.

Actually, I am saying conservatives are stuck in the 18th century

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, numskull. On the one hand you claim some kind of ideological kinship with 18th Century liberals. On the other hand you admit that you have nothing in common with them.

Nutjobber is just very confused.

 

[rightwinger]

back to the OP.

the government can create an environment that is conducive to the creation of private sector jobs and the government can create government jobs that must be paid for with tax collections.

In one case govt revenue is increased in the other govt spending is increased.

Does anyone really have to ask which is better?

Both are necessary

Yes, but its the % relationship between the two that has gotten out of sync. We have way too many people on the govt payroll.

The US has a lower percentage on the government payroll than any industrialized nation
We have fewer government workers than we had under JFK even though we have almost double the population

Most of the "government workers" under JFK were in the military.

Still government workers
We still have the same number of federal workers as we did in the sixties

 

[bripat9643]

back to the OP.

the government can create an environment that is conducive to the creation of private sector jobs and the government can create government jobs that must be paid for with tax collections.

In one case govt revenue is increased in the other govt spending is increased.

Does anyone really have to ask which is better?

Both are necessary

Yes, but its the % relationship between the two that has gotten out of sync. We have way too many people on the govt payroll.

The US has a lower percentage on the government payroll than any industrialized nation
We have fewer government workers than we had under JFK even though we have almost double the population

Most of the "government workers" under JFK were in the military.

Still government workers
We still have the same number of federal workers as we did in the sixties

There's a big difference between a soldier defending out country and a welfare bureaucrat dispensing checks to ticks on the ass of society.

 

[rightwinger]

back to the OP.

the government can create an environment that is conducive to the creation of private sector jobs and the government can create government jobs that must be paid for with tax collections.

In one case govt revenue is increased in the other govt spending is increased.

Does anyone really have to ask which is better?

Both are necessary

Yes, but its the % relationship between the two that has gotten out of sync. We have way too many people on the govt payroll.

The US has a lower percentage on the government payroll than any industrialized nation
We have fewer government workers than we had under JFK even though we have almost double the population

LOL! Sure. Kewl story, bro.

I do get tired of showing up the Rabbi

 

[kaz]

...Cons say Obama doesn't deserve credit for cutting unemployment in have, because the government can't create jobs.

But now Jeb Bush is promising to create 19 million jobs. And Trump is promising to create the most jobs of any previous POTUS.

Hypocrisy IS the GOP.

Yes, they are idiots, government doesn't create jobs. This one's pretty lucid for you

We have already shown the government creates tens of millions of jobs

No, you haven't shown that. Do you know what a "net" job is, Homey? I"ll give you a hint, it doesn't involve online shopping...

 

[The Rabbi]

back to the OP.

the government can create an environment that is conducive to the creation of private sector jobs and the government can create government jobs that must be paid for with tax collections.

In one case govt revenue is increased in the other govt spending is increased.

Does anyone really have to ask which is better?

Both are necessary

Yes, but its the % relationship between the two that has gotten out of sync. We have way too many people on the govt payroll.

The US has a lower percentage on the government payroll than any industrialized nation
We have fewer government workers than we had under JFK even though we have almost double the population

LOL! Sure. Kewl story, bro.

I do get tired of showing up the Rabbi

You understand that does not support your statement, right?
I love when people post graphs and they have no idea what they say.

 

[rightwinger]

...Cons say Obama doesn't deserve credit for cutting unemployment in have, because the government can't create jobs.

But now Jeb Bush is promising to create 19 million jobs. And Trump is promising to create the most jobs of any previous POTUS.

Hypocrisy IS the GOP.

Yes, they are idiots, government doesn't create jobs. This one's pretty lucid for you

We have already shown the government creates tens of millions of jobs

No, you haven't shown that. Do you know what a "net" job is, Homey? I"ll give you a hint, it doesn't involve online shopping...

Your net jobs are purely imaginary

 

[rightwinger]

Both are necessary

Yes, but its the % relationship between the two that has gotten out of sync. We have way too many people on the govt payroll.

The US has a lower percentage on the government payroll than any industrialized nation
We have fewer government workers than we had under JFK even though we have almost double the population

LOL! Sure. Kewl story, bro.

I do get tired of showing up the Rabbi

You understand that does not support your statement, right?
I love when people post graphs and they have no idea what they say.

Let's see?

Cons claim government is getting too big
I claim we are actually getting smaller
Rabbi laughs
I prove Rabbi doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground

Rabbi doubles down on stupidity

Par for the course

 

[kaz]

Both are necessary

Yes, but its the % relationship between the two that has gotten out of sync. We have way too many people on the govt payroll.

The US has a lower percentage on the government payroll than any industrialized nation
We have fewer government workers than we had under JFK even though we have almost double the population

Most of the "government workers" under JFK were in the military.

Still government workers
We still have the same number of federal workers as we did in the sixties

There's a big difference between a soldier defending out country and a welfare bureaucrat dispensing checks to ticks on the ass of society.

...Cons say Obama doesn't deserve credit for cutting unemployment in have, because the government can't create jobs.

But now Jeb Bush is promising to create 19 million jobs. And Trump is promising to create the most jobs of any previous POTUS.

Hypocrisy IS the GOP.

Yes, they are idiots, government doesn't create jobs. This one's pretty lucid for you

We have already shown the government creates tens of millions of jobs

No, you haven't shown that. Do you know what a "net" job is, Homey? I"ll give you a hint, it doesn't involve online shopping...

Your net jobs are purely imaginary

Whatever you say. Why don't you have a clown on your avatar like the rest of your clown party?

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, but its the % relationship between the two that has gotten out of sync. We have way too many people on the govt payroll.

The US has a lower percentage on the government payroll than any industrialized nation
We have fewer government workers than we had under JFK even though we have almost double the population

Most of the "government workers" under JFK were in the military.

Still government workers
We still have the same number of federal workers as we did in the sixties

There's a big difference between a soldier defending out country and a welfare bureaucrat dispensing checks to ticks on the ass of society.

...Cons say Obama doesn't deserve credit for cutting unemployment in have, because the government can't create jobs.

But now Jeb Bush is promising to create 19 million jobs. And Trump is promising to create the most jobs of any previous POTUS.

Hypocrisy IS the GOP.

Yes, they are idiots, government doesn't create jobs. This one's pretty lucid for you

We have already shown the government creates tens of millions of jobs

No, you haven't shown that. Do you know what a "net" job is, Homey? I"ll give you a hint, it doesn't involve online shopping...

Your net jobs are purely imaginary

Whatever you say. Why don't you have a clown on your avatar like the rest of your clown party?

Your "net jobs" claim is a myth based on the same cutting taxes brings more jobs myth we saw with trickle down

Fool me once....

 

[kaz]

The US has a lower percentage on the government payroll than any industrialized nation
We have fewer government workers than we had under JFK even though we have almost double the population

Most of the "government workers" under JFK were in the military.

Still government workers
We still have the same number of federal workers as we did in the sixties

There's a big difference between a soldier defending out country and a welfare bureaucrat dispensing checks to ticks on the ass of society.

Yes, they are idiots, government doesn't create jobs. This one's pretty lucid for you

We have already shown the government creates tens of millions of jobs

No, you haven't shown that. Do you know what a "net" job is, Homey? I"ll give you a hint, it doesn't involve online shopping...

Your net jobs are purely imaginary

Whatever you say. Why don't you have a clown on your avatar like the rest of your clown party?

Your "net jobs" claim is a myth based on the same cutting taxes brings more jobs myth we saw with trickle down

Fool me once....

You get fooled every time by everyone.

And I didn't make a "net jobs" claim. I asked you if you know what net jobs are. You didn't, so I gave it up

 

[rightwinger]

Most of the "government workers" under JFK were in the military.

Still government workers
We still have the same number of federal workers as we did in the sixties

There's a big difference between a soldier defending out country and a welfare bureaucrat dispensing checks to ticks on the ass of society.

We have already shown the government creates tens of millions of jobs

No, you haven't shown that. Do you know what a "net" job is, Homey? I"ll give you a hint, it doesn't involve online shopping...

Your net jobs are purely imaginary

Whatever you say. Why don't you have a clown on your avatar like the rest of your clown party?

Your "net jobs" claim is a myth based on the same cutting taxes brings more jobs myth we saw with trickle down

Fool me once....

You get fooled every time by everyone.

And I didn't make a "net jobs" claim. I asked you if you know what net jobs are. You didn't, so I gave it up

Go for it

I need the amusement

 

[kaz]

Still government workers
We still have the same number of federal workers as we did in the sixties

There's a big difference between a soldier defending out country and a welfare bureaucrat dispensing checks to ticks on the ass of society.

No, you haven't shown that. Do you know what a "net" job is, Homey? I"ll give you a hint, it doesn't involve online shopping...

Your net jobs are purely imaginary

Whatever you say. Why don't you have a clown on your avatar like the rest of your clown party?

Your "net jobs" claim is a myth based on the same cutting taxes brings more jobs myth we saw with trickle down

Fool me once....

You get fooled every time by everyone.

And I didn't make a "net jobs" claim. I asked you if you know what net jobs are. You didn't, so I gave it up

Go for it

I need the amusement

I said I'm not going into it unless you know what net jobs are, and so far, you have clearly indicated you don't

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, but its the % relationship between the two that has gotten out of sync. We have way too many people on the govt payroll.

The US has a lower percentage on the government payroll than any industrialized nation
We have fewer government workers than we had under JFK even though we have almost double the population

LOL! Sure. Kewl story, bro.

I do get tired of showing up the Rabbi

You understand that does not support your statement, right?
I love when people post graphs and they have no idea what they say.

Let's see?

Cons claim government is getting too big
I claim we are actually getting smaller
Rabbi laughs
I prove Rabbi doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground

Rabbi doubles down on stupidity

Par for the course

If it werent for self declared victory you'd have no victory at all.
Government is bigger than it's ever been. F act.

 

[Boss]

200 years of court interpretation says you are wrong

.

Well... I guess we should round up all black people and put them back in shackles again because SCOTUS ruled they were property and held that decision until we passed a Constitutional amendment to override it. Then they ruled segregation and Jim Crow was Constitutional until Congress passed an Act to overturn that. So... IF the SCOTUS is the final decider... we need to enslave the blacks again, right?

That puts you at 150 years ago

You have a long way to go. No court is going to agree with the simplistic interpretation that the Constitution is a be all and end all established 200 years ago

Again... The SCOTUS ruling was that slaves are property and blacks can be segregated. IF, as you argue, the Court decides what the Constitution means... we need to enslave black again because this was their ruling. We had no right to override that and it remains the court's decision on the matter.

Also, I notice you have not addressed the previous argument that Federal government can "do what needs doing" under the general welfare clause. I assume you read what Madison had to say on the subject, so was Madison wrong? Do you have some kind of explanation for how the Constitution grants government unlimited power under "general welfare" but then turns around and specifies enumerated powers?

Sorry libertarian......but The Federalist Papers are not law
So much so that they were anonymously published

Madison had to edit and re-edit the constitution to satisfy all signatories. What is in there is the law.....not what Madison may have wanted

The courts decide....not the Federalist Papers

Well I never claimed the FP were law. The text we're talking about and Madison is explaining, was not rewritten at all... in fact, it is virtually the same text as was in the Articles of Confederacy. The text didn't magically change in meaning. Rules of language and grammar didn't change. You've still not explained why the Constitution would grant practically unlimited power under "general welfare" and then the very next sentences, enumerate specific powers.

The Court does not decide what the Constitution means. They make rulings based on what they believe the Constitution to mean. They have a very long history of being wrong. Thankfully for us, the Constitution does NOT leave the Court as the final arbiter. We also have a legislative and executive branch, and we can always amend the Constitution.

 

[kaz]

Liberals founded this country and are responsible for every major advance.

18th century liberals bear no resemblance to your ilk.

Nor should they....liberals evolve to face new challenges

Is that another way of saying they no longer believe in anything they believed in during the 18th century?

what he is saying is that the liberals of 1776 are the conservatives of 2015.

Actually, I am saying conservatives are stuck in the 18th century



.

Better than the Democrats who live in a fantasy world